Police (Pay) (Hansard, 3 March 1977)

§ 6. Miss Fookes
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the latest position in the pay dispute with the police.

§ 7. Mr. Aitken
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he next expects to meet the leaders of the Police Federation.

§ 8. Mr. Hal Miller
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will next meet the Police Federation.

§ 25. Mr. Viggers
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the current claim by the Police Federation for improved terms of service.

§ The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Merlyn Rees)
I last met the Chairman and Secretary of the Police Federation for England and Wales the day before yesterday. This was the latest in a series of meetings; and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has had meetings with representatives of the Scottish Federation. I have also had meetings—the latest only 590 this morning—with representatives of the official side of the Police Council, which, of course, has to be involved in any settlement.
In the course of those meetings I have made clear that, if we can resolve the immediate pay problems, I am prepared to initiate a review of police pay negotiating machinery and an examination of the constitutional arrangements for the Police Federation. I am having a further meeting with the chairman and secretary of the federation this evening. It would be wrong for me to comment in detail on the situation at this time. I can say, however, that I very much hope that it will be possible to reach a solution acceptable to all concerned and compatible with the current phase of pay policy.

§ Mr. Speaker
As four Questions from one side of the House are being answered together, I shall call other hon. Members for supplementary questions afterwards.

§ Miss Fookes
I recognise the delicacy of the situation, but will the Home Secretary bear firmly in mind the principle that those who behave with most responsibility should not fare worst?

§ Mr. Rees
Yes, but in this respect—I have been looking into it recently—one has to remember that even in bad times the number of people who have had pay awards because of strikes has been extremely small, and, as regards the police, their unique position was recognised 18 months ago when they had 30 per cent. instead of £6. I certainly understand the uniqueness of their position, but I must act within the pay policy.

§ Mr. Aitken
Does the Home Secretary realise that, if the pay talks with the Police Federation break down, the Government will have set the police down the politically dangerous road of becoming a trade union-type organisation, affiliated to the TUC and with the right to strike? Does not the right hon. Gentleman feel that any such fundamental change in the unique status of the police would be highly regrettable, since the police must be seen to be independent of all political groups and factions if they are to do their job properly?

§ Mr. Rees
Certainly, with regard to the right to strike I agree fully. However, 591 with regard to the question which the police have raised with me—and, I understand, over a long period—that we should look at the status of the Police Federation, it is not for me to say what the TUC would say. If the police were to talk to me about affiliating to the TUC, that is a matter which I should consider, but it has not arisen.

§ Mr. Miller
In the course of his meetings, has the Home Secretary understood the very genuine feeling of the police that they have not been given the award which they were originally granted in the way in which it was originally awarded? Should the matter come to the Cabinet on a discussion of pay policy, will the right hon. Gentleman try to explain to his colleagues that the public place a far higher priority on carrying through the police award than on some other items of public expenditure?

§ Mr. Rees
In fact it did come to the Cabinet, and on that occasion my predecessor put the case for the police having 30 per cent. instead of £6. That was the decision taken. So the Cabinet has done exactly what the hon. Gentleman suggests. [Interruption.] It is no good making a statement and then withdrawing from it. At that time the Cabinet treated the police as a unique body, and that is why that decision was taken.

§ Mr. Viggers
Is the Secretary of State aware that the police accept that they were regarded as a unique case 18 months ago but that this should not now be thrown in their teeth in negotiations, and that they should continue to be regarded as a unique body? Will the right hon. Gentleman continue to maintain in the discussions that the moderation of the police must not allow them to be treated less well than people who show themselves to be bloody-minded and unreasonable?

§ Mr. Rees
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I think that he shows an understanding of the matter. What we are now talking about in this context is an increase of 5 per cent. in earnings, subject to a minimum of £2.50 and a maximum of £4 a week. It is within that context that everyone has to settle. But, as I say, I have discussed—not negotiated, because there are others 592 involved there—forward commitments into the next phase. I am aware of the uniqueness of the police. The problem is within this phase, and it is important for the sake of everyone that we should get to negotiation and settle this matter.

§ Mr. Kilroy-Silk
Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is considerable dismay and concern in Lancashire about the activities of the chief constable there? Does he not consider it appropriate in these circumstances that the chief constable and the senior officers should be suspended from duty—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order.

§ Mr. Kilroy-Silk
—and that my right hon. Friend should institute—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I remind hon. Members who continue to speak after I have called for order that I have an inclination to lose my sight for a while where they are concerned. That is only fair to the House, and hon. Members must acknowledge the rule. The Question is about police pay.

§ Mr. Hooson
Has the Home Secretary had talks with the Chancellor of the Exchequer to find out whether it is possible to conduct talks, with the intention of obtaining a settlement for August or September, that will enable a more amicable settlement in the present phase?

§ Mr. Rees
If the hon. and learned Gentleman is referring to the next phase, that is a different matter altogether. It is, of course, a matter for the Police Federation and other organisations. All I can say is that what we have been talking about—not negotiating—refers to this phase with regard to the pay angle. Forward commitment—upon which there has been some discussion—does not seem to be a major issue.

§ Mr. Kilroy-Silk
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I draw your attention to the fact that Question No. 7 refers to meetings with the Police Federation, not to pay, and that, therefore, the question that I raised is a proper matter of concern for the Federation? Would the Home Secretary now care to answer my question?

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I dealt with that question earlier.

§ Mr. Ford
Is the Minister aware that there will be wide public support for measures to allay discontent in the police force, particularly from people such as some of my constituents who are afraid to go out in the evenings and who realise that the only way to defeat hooliganism, vandalism and petty crime is by having a plentiful supply of contented, well-paid bobbies on the ground?

§ Mr. Rees
I agree, but during the lifetime of this Government we have spent, in real terms, £¼ billion more on law and order and the number of police has increased every year. Of course contentment matters. The number of policemen is not the issue.

§ Mr. George Rodgers
Is my right hon. Friend aware that, while many hon. Members on this side have considerable sympathy for people who have received rough justice at the hands of the social contract, they would resent a breach of the Pay Code in isolation for the police?

§ Mr. Rees
Nobody, during the talks I have had, has asked me to break the pay policy. The discussions have been about how to be fair to all concerned and finding a way forward within the existing pay policy. I must make that clear.

§ Mr. Whitelaw
Is the Home Secretary aware that I join him in hoping that he will be able to reach a fair settlement that will recognise the work that, as the hon. Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Ford) has stated, the police have to do? In reaching that settlement, will the Home Secretary accept that the situation is serious when there is a sense of grievance within the police force so great that there are demands for the police to be given the right to strike? Does the Home Secretary agree that such demands are a step down the dangerous road to a police strike, which most people would regard as a national catastrophe?

§ Mr. Rees
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the road towards a police strike would be a bad way for the community, even if the facts of the matter belied the argument that underlay the feeling. There is a feeling of frustration and I come across it when I visit police forces, but I judge that it exists far more among young policemen than 594 among older ones. I recognise that we all want to find a way out of the problem.